Do you believe in the supernatural?

Mickeroo · 27-07-2011 12:09PM

py2006 wrote: »

In fairness, you can look for photos yourself but I would imagine you would dismiss all.

Amateur photographers with limited cameras trying to capture a small moving object a great distance away often leads to poor quality footage! While not necessarily evidence of alien life it is also not necessarily not evidence.

If a photo is not verifiable then it is not evidence I'm afraid. No matter what's in the photo extrerrestrial life is one of the least likely possibilities there is.

Emiko · 27-07-2011 12:11PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because something is not easily explained does not mean that it is unexplainable, and the explanation for an unusual occorance that boils down to "it was magic" is not an explanation at all.

For something to have an effect, it must have a mechanism. There is no plausible mechanism through which ghosts or goblins or psychics or astrology etc can work by.

You mean there are no mechanisms we currently understand which would explain ghosts etc.?

Or there are no mechanisms which allow for ghosts, therefore there are no ghosts?

While the OP only mentioned ghosts and psychics and things, the category 'supernatural' should also include so called 'alternative' medicines. Things like Reiki, Homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractic voodoo etc.

All of the above have no credible mechanism through which they can have the physiological effects that are claimed by their advocates.

Homeopathy is just water people. Reiki is just wishful thinking and chiropractic is just dangerous

Sure, but given that a very high percentage (80 or 90 IIRC) of conventional Western medicine works no better than the placebo effect, the above practices can be just as valid in healing people.

But that's a whole other debate.

Frank Black · 27-07-2011 12:13PM

rossc007 wrote: »

I think its more of a scientific probability, given what we know of the universe and the conditions required for life.

While the scale of the Universe is huge and there is most likely many planets with the ability to sustain intelligent life (though estimates of the probable number vary considerably, the fact is that we have absolutely no idea of the chances of intelligent life evolving - it's entirely possible that the chances of this occurring are so exceedingly small that it has only happened once in the entire history of the Universe.

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:14PM

Emiko wrote: »

Sure, but given that a very high percentage (80 or 90 IIRC) of conventional Western medicine works no better than the placebo effect, the above practices can be just as valid in healing people.

Source???

HUNK · 27-07-2011 12:15PM

No. If you can't explain an event or phenomenon withhold judgement and simply say you don't know. Jumping to the conclusion that it was a supernatural occurrence is just entertaining your wishful thinking.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:16PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Amateur photographers of today have photography equipment better than what NASA had in the 50s and yet UFOs still seem to be taken with amateur cameras from the 30s.

Isn't there Nasa footage of unexplained objects floating around. Not necessarily E.T but interesting nonetheless.

I can't find the one I was looking for, its an interesting one showing objects slowing down and changing direction which can't be dismissed as asteroids. but this is something:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pawTzpNKW4

Emiko · 27-07-2011 12:18PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Source???

That particualar quote I read in a Robert Anton Wilson book, which I can't google, having tried in the past, and it pertains to the AMA.

There is another, easily googled, source which says 90% of new medicines are no better than the placebo effect , if you care to see it.

And again, I stress, this is another debate, and not one for this thread.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:18PM

HUNK wrote: »

No. If you can't explain an event or phenomenon withhold judgement and simply say you don't know. Jumping to the conclusion that it was a supernatural occurrence is just entertaining your wishful thinking.

Equally, if you can't explain you can't debunk theories as to what they are!

Akrasia · 27-07-2011 12:19PM

py2006 wrote: »

In fairness, you can look for photos yourself but I would imagine you would dismiss all.

Well, if something is claimed to be an alien space ship but it looks like it is a cloud or a fraud or it is just an ill defined blurry object that could have a number of different explanations, why would you accept it as evidence?

The claim that aliens are visiting earth is an extraordinary one, it would be silly to see a picture of a blurry object and conclude that it is 'equally likely' that it is an alien space ship or an advertising blimp

Amateur photographers with limited cameras trying to capture a small moving object a great distance away often leads to poor quality footage! While not necessarily evidence of alien life it is also not necessarily not evidence. If that makes sense! :P

A blurry dot that could be anything is not evidence of an alien spaceship and a million 'not necessarily not evidence' forms of evidence combined still does not constitute one single piece of good evidence.

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:23PM

py2006 wrote: »

Equally, if you can't explain you can't debunk theories as to what they are!

But the probability of it being something we know exists is much (infinitely?) larger than the probability of it being something we don't know exists.

Flying leprechauns from Blarney are just as likely as alien ships as we have no evidence either even exist.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:23PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, if something is claimed to be an alien space ship but it looks like it is a cloud or a fraud or it is just an ill defined blurry object that could have a number of different explanations, why would you accept it as evidence?

The claim that aliens are visiting earth is an extraordinary one, it would be silly to see a picture of a blurry object and conclude that it is 'equally likely' that it is an alien space ship or an advertising blimp

A blurry dot that could be anything is not evidence of an alien spaceship and a million 'not necessarily not evidence' forms of evidence combined still does not constitute one single piece of good evidence.

Leaving the quality aside. Some of the more interesting ones are the size, speed and ability to change direction at will. Something that isn't possible with current aircraft!

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:26PM

py2006 wrote: »

Leaving the quality aside. Some of the more interesting ones are the size, speed and ability to change direction at will. Something that isn't possible with current aircraft!

But without good quality we can't tell it's size or speed. A blurry UFO moving fast across a lens could be a 5cm long stone moving 5mph 5in from the lens or a 500m ship moving 5000mph 500miles from the lens.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:26PM

Seachmall wrote: »

But the probability of it being something we know exists is much (infinitely?) larger than the probability of it being something we don't know exists.

Flying leprechauns from Blarney are just as likely as alien ships as we have no evidence either even exist.

Well now, I personally wouldn't equate toothfaires, leprechauns, Santa, god (:eek:) etc with the ghost/ufo thing.

You never hear of eyewitness accounts, possible footage etc of any of these. I find I can't dismiss completely the whole UFO and ghost thing because so many people have claimed an experience and not all are village idiots

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:28PM

Seachmall wrote: »

But without good quality we can't tell it's size or speed. A blurry UFO moving fast across a lens could be a 5cm long stone moving 5mph 5in from the lens or a 500m ship moving 5000mph 500miles from the lens.

I believe with some footage, they can tell the size and speed etc. I am not sure how this is done! But I remember reading that if you believe you are filming an object in the sky, make sure you include as much background/foreground objects as possible.

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:28PM

py2006 wrote: »

Well now, I personally wouldn't equate toothfaires, leprechauns, Santa, god (:eek:) etc with the ghost/ufo thing.

Well, you should.

You never hear of eyewitness accounts, possible footage etc of any of these. I find I can't dismiss completely the whole UFO and ghost thing because so many people have claimed an experience and not all are village idiots

Eyewitness testimonies are not in any way, shape, or form reliable without objective evidence to support it.

I believe with some footage, they can tell the size and speed etc. I am not sure how this is done! But I remember reading that if you believe you are filming an object in the sky, make sure you include as much background/foreground objects as possible.

To calculate the speed and size you need to know roughly the distance from the camera, UFO believers will tell you the object must be in the sky or a few miles away but that's an assumption that can't be proven without conclusively knowing either the speed or size before hand.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:30PM

Let me add here at this point before I am vilified as one of your 'idiots'. I am not saying that beyond a doubt alien/ghosts exist. What I am saying is that I am not going to dismiss it either. There is interesting evidence out there and they need to be examined and not dismissed.

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:32PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Well, you should.

Why?

Eyewitness testimonies are not in any way, shape, or form reliable without objective evidence to support it.

My point is that the sheer volume compared to that of a toothfairy for example is significant an interesting.

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:33PM

py2006 wrote: »

Let me add here at this point before I am vilified as one of your 'idiots'. I am not saying that beyond a doubt alien/ghosts exist. What I am saying is that I am not going to dismiss it either. There is interesting evidence out there and they need to be examined and not dismissed.

I never called you or anyone else an idiot. I've personally seen a UFO hovering over the UL astro-turfs, however I'm also aware that I was drinking heavily and others who were with me don't recall it (despite the fact I distinctly remember them looking at it!).

There are 2 explanations:
I saw a UFO, and they had their memories erased while 10,000 other students were completely oblivious to it.
or
I was drunk and/or dreamt it.

Which is more likely?

[BTW, this is completely true, not just trying to make a point]

Why?

Just as much evidence for both.

My point is that the sheer volume compared to that of a toothfairy for example is significant an interesting.

It is interesting but it says more about our culture and/or individual's psychology than the existence of [intelligent] aliens.

Mickeroo · 27-07-2011 12:40PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygbZ4TKtef8

py2006 · 27-07-2011 12:41PM

Seachmall wrote: »

I never called you or anyone else an idiot.

Not you, but somebody earlier made the point that people who think they experience something are idiots!

Just as much evidence for both.

I would have thought the evidence of ghosts/ufos far outweighs that of the toothfairy! Although, I never looked!

Listen folks, at the end of the day! There is considerable evidence out there. Enough to make it an interesting investigation. You can't dismiss evidence purely because you don't believe in something.

That is why I refuse to say aliens/ufo's/ghosts don't exist!

Mickeroo · 27-07-2011 12:45PM

py2006 wrote: »

Listen folks, at the end of the day! There is considerable evidence out there. Enough to make it an interesting investigation. You can't dismiss evidence purely because you don't believe in something.

That is why I refuse to say aliens/ufo's/ghosts don't exist!

Sound's more like you're refusing to accept all the evidence has successfully been debunked when placed under scrutiny. That's your choice though

Seachmall · 27-07-2011 12:50PM

py2006 wrote: »

There is considerable evidence out there. Enough to make it an interesting investigation.

These investigations have occurred and all reached the same conclusion; "No official government investigation has ever publicly concluded that UFOs are indisputably real, physical objects, extraterrestrial in origin, or of concern to national defense."

The possibility that one, or more, of these sightings are in fact true does exist but the evidence suggests it is highly improbable, about as improbable as leprechauns and unicorns.

Davidius · 27-07-2011 01:59PM

py2006 wrote: »

Equally, if you can't explain you can't debunk theories as to what they are!

That is not true. Not being able to reach a confident conclusion on the cause of an event doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be enough information to debunk a proposed explanation.

It is also feasible to weigh out the likelihood of proposed explanations. An explanation that uses a minimal amount of assumptions and relies on previously established phenomenon has a lot more going for it than one that contrives a whole other realm of existence.

Frank Black · 27-07-2011 03:01PM

I suggest that any alien race that possessed the technology that enabled them to undertake interstellar space travel would be more than capable of undertaking any study of our planet without the need to hover around the sky in a ‘flying saucer’ type thingy.

Akrasia · 27-07-2011 04:24PM

py2006 wrote: »

Why?

My point is that the sheer volume compared to that of a toothfairy for example is significant an interesting.

There was a massive volume of reports of witchcraft and demonic posessions in europe between the 14th and 19th century which unfortunately resulted in the brutal execution if hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children.

There was a cultural phenomenon that led people to believe that witches were real and to see witchcraft as the cause of anything they couldn't immediately explain.

Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it true. When we are assessing claims, we should assess the quality of the evidence, and not be swayed by a seemingly large quantity of low quality circumstantial evidence

Akrasia · 27-07-2011 04:27PM

black francis wrote: »

I suggest that any alien race that possessed the technology that enabled them to undertake interstellar space travel would be more than capable of undertaking any study of our planet without the need to hover around the sky in a ‘flying saucer’ type thingy.

But they would definitely need the flying saucer to enable them to give all those redneck farmers an anal probe.

Wolfe Tone · 27-07-2011 04:31PM

Yeah I do.

Do you believe in the supernatural?

Comments